
What the U.S. Can Learn About Democracy From Latin America
Imagine a couple of bros recording a video podcast in which they get together to swap compliments while casually chatting about vaporizing due process. This is roughly what it felt like to tune in to President Donald Trump's joint press conference with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office in April. First came the mutual praise. 'I want to just say hello to the people of El Salvador and say they have one hell of a president,' Trump started. Bukele expressed delight at meeting 'the leader of the free world.' Later in the conversation, Trump told Bukele, 'You sort of look like a teenager,' playfully slapping his arm.
The pair then turned their attention to the extrajudicial transfer of dozens of Venezuelan migrants held in the United States to the notorious Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo), as well as the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador by U.S. authorities. Asked by a reporter if he would facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bukele asked coyly, 'How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?' Trump bobbed his head approvingly. (Abrego Garcia was ultimately returned to the U.S. earlier this month.)
This confab was the latest brutish two-step in a decades-long political dance between the U.S. and El Salvador. In the 1980s, the U.S. gave billions of dollars to murderous right-wing factions during the Central American nation's civil war, fueling the conflict and destabilizing the country. In the '90s, the Clinton administration began deporting Salvadoran immigrants convicted of crimes in the U.S. back to their homeland, a move that helped propel the rise of powerful gangs in a country that was institutionally weak after years of war. Rising gang violence then led thousands of ordinary Salvadorans to flee to the United States. The chaos laid the groundwork for the rise of Bukele, a man who once described himself as ' the world's coolest dictator. ' And now the U.S. is paying the country to house Venezuelan migrants, including many whose greatest crime seems to have been seeking asylum here.
This feels like more of the same, but with an awful new twist. American intervention in Latin America has often been premised on the condescending notion that the U.S. is a forbearing parent, the stable democracy tasked with maintaining order in its hemisphere. But now that our country has deployed the military against its own citizens in Los Angeles, taken a Constitution-shredding approach to deportation, and defied court orders, it might be Latin America's turn to offer guidance. Latin American nations, for all their political convulsions and repressive periods, have a rich history of social movements grounded in collective ideals. As some historians talk about Trump as a strongman in the Latin American mold, perhaps the region has something to teach us about democracy.
Trump's regime makes the arrival of the historian Greg Grandin's ambitious new book, America, América: A New History of the New World, incredibly timely. His previous, Pulitzer-winning book, The End of the Myth, incisively explained how U.S. expansionism gave way to the border-wall isolationism of the Trump era. In America, América, he expands the frame. Over 768 pages, Grandin gives us the sweep of history: the bloodshed of colonization, the movements for independence, manifest destiny in the U.S. and caudillo rule in Latin America, a pair of world wars, the Cold War, and the growing polarization of the 21st century.
The author is not the first scholar to tackle the history of America—as in the American continent, not just the United States (which keeps trying to hoard the name for itself). The British historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto's 2003 book The Americas: A Hemispheric History covered the shifting fortunes of the continent's Anglo and Latin American nations over five centuries. But that work was more limited in scope, and in the two decades since it was published, a new generation of caudillos has arisen, including Bukele, Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, Argentina's Javier Milei, and Trump.
America, América brings us to the present. It also offers a fresh look at the past, primarily focusing on the British and Spanish empires and providing a deep analysis of the ideas upon which both were built and governed (for better and worse). Grandin considers, for example, how both empires contended—or didn't—with the ethics of conquest. And he goes deep on the ways that the Monroe Doctrine shaped U.S.–Latin America relations over two centuries. When President James Monroe declared in 1823 that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to future European colonial projects, his proclamation was received as a statement of solidarity by newly independent Latin American nations. But it quickly became 'a self-issued warrant for the U.S. to intervene against its southern neighbors,' Grandin writes. Within two years, the U.S. was actively undermining Mexican President Guadalupe Victoria; military incursions in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, and Puerto Rico followed. By the middle of the 20th century, Cold War paranoias about left-wing movements, spurred by the revolution in Cuba, led to, in Grandin's estimation, 16 U.S.-aided regime changes from 1961 to 1969—including one in El Salvador, which put that country on the slippery slope to civil war.
This is a big and unwieldy book—and it could have made for arid reading. But Grandin has a knack for enlivening theory with anecdotes that are both enlightening and appalling. A section detailing the independence movement in Venezuela, for instance, features a novelistic tangent about a royalist caudillo named José Tomás Boves, who attempted to beat the reformers back: He gathered an army to seize the capital of the newly independent nation, brutalizing anyone who stood in his path. In Cumaná, he held Caracas's republican orchestra captive and ordered the musicians to play waltzes as his soldiers danced with the town's widows. 'Blood from the day's killing still moist on their boots turned the dance floor red,' writes Grandin. 'As the orchestra played, Boves took one musician out at a time to be executed.'
Although such gory tales push the story along, what makes América, America instructive is Grandin's focus on the way that Latin American thinkers have advocated for important social rights from the very foundation of their republics. For starters, many early independence movements in Latin America were linked to the abolition of slavery—most notably in Haiti. The South American liberation leader Simón Bolívar emancipated the slave laborers who worked on his family's estate—unlike George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Moreover, the constitutions of many Spanish-speaking republics went beyond enshrining individual rights, also offering protection to el bien común de la Sociedad ('the common good of society'). Mexico's constitution was the first in the world to guarantee birthright citizenship. Venezuela's first constitution included nine instances of the word social and 15 of the word society, Grandin writes: 'Neither word appears in the United States Constitution.' Venezuela's remarkable document declared, 'Because governments are constituted for the common good and happiness of men, society must provide aid to the destitute and unfortunate, and education to all citizens.'
Certainly, there was a gap between high-minded intentions and the actual application of the law. The abolition of slavery in Latin America didn't immediately eliminate it in practice, and that first Venezuelan constitution was shortly replaced by another. But Latin America's ideals of el bien común have nevertheless helped shape legal codes into the present—including international law. Many of the ideas put forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, emerged from Latin America, including the equal treatment of men and women, the right to marry across racial lines, the right to health care, and the right to leisure time.
Grandin's narrative upends the idea of Latin America as perpetual victim, instead chronicling a tradition of leaders who have consistently fought for the social good. One particularly illuminating chapter traces the way that liberation theology, Marxist economic theory, and Latin American literature came together in the 1960s to articulate 'the intangible ways patriarchs, dictators, landlords, and foreign capital maintained their rule.' Grandin argues that this was 'a period of such intense intellectual vitality, it should be considered equal to European Enlightenment.'
Particularly poignant in the context of El Salvador is the story of Father Ignacio Ellacuría, a prominent Jesuit clergyman in that country who was part of a wave of Latin American theologians interested in liberating their communities from economic and political peonage. One of Ellacuría's central ideas was that the poor shouldn't be expected to roll over and accept their condition. He wrote that he aimed 'to bring the crucified down from their crosses.' These ideas, along with Ellacuría's attempt to broker a peace treaty between leftist insurgents and the government, were not well received by the military. In 1989, amid the chaos of the civil war, Ellacuría was assassinated as he slept, along with five other Jesuit clergymen and their housekeeper and her daughter. The perpetrators: members of the infamous Atlácatl Battalion, which had been created under the direction of U.S. advisers. The murder of these priests did not stamp out their ideas. Today, the priests are on the road to canonization, and an associate of theirs, Cardinal Gregorio Rosa Chávez, is one of Bukele's most outspoken critics.
As Grandin notes in his final chapter, the world is now experiencing the rise of a new generation of autocrats—among them Bukele, whom he criticizes for using CECOT as a site of a 'Dantesque display of fascist dehumanization.' But in Latin America's socially minded ideals, the author finds a way forward. 'Latin Americans know that the way to beat fascism now is the same as it was back then,' he writes, comparing our era to the rise of autocracy in the 1930s, 'by welding liberalism to a forceful agenda of social rights, by promising to better the material conditions of people's lives.' To take one example, the electoral rise of the socialist Salvador Allende in Chile didn't come about because the masses were being mindlessly seduced by leftist doctrine; it was a result of the tangible (and very reasonable) reforms that Allende delivered: literacy programs, an expanded education system, increased pensions for widows, free lunches for schoolchildren, and workplace-safety regulations.
How might these ideas of el bien commún inform American social movements today? For now, Grandin has no more answers than anyone else. America, América focuses more on big-picture ideology than on the nitty-gritty mechanics of resistance. Unexamined, for example, are the ways in which the Catholic Church in Chile built institutions to resist the depredations of the military regime in the 1970s and '80s, helping set the stage for the liberalization that followed. There is a lot of material left to explore when it comes to overcoming the latest setbacks in the American continents' slow progress toward freedom. Perhaps it would be a fitting topic for Grandin's next book.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EU wants upfront relief for key sectors in any US trade deal, sources say
By Julia Payne and Philip Blenkinsop BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union wants immediate relief from tariffs in key sectors as part of any trade deal with the United States due by a July 9 deadline, but the bloc expects even a best-case deal to include a degree of asymmetry, EU diplomats told Reuters. The European Commission, which coordinates EU trade policy, is pushing three key points in Washington this week even as it accepts the U.S. baseline tariff of 10% as unavoidable. Both sides are working towards an agreement in principle, with the final details to be ironed out later. In a short negotiation document Washington sent last week, the Trump administration only presented what it expects from Brussels without any concessions of its own, EU diplomats briefed on the matter said. For any deal, Brussels wants in return a reduction of baseline tariffs to pre-Trump levels or a zero-for-zero tariff in cases when it existed. That means specifically lower tariffs for alcoholic beverages and medical technology, on which the U.S. applies its 10% tariff. The EU also wants a deal to cover commercial aircraft and parts, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, sectors the U.S. is investigating, but has not yet imposed extra duties on. Trump said in June the pharma duties would be announced "very soon". Secondly, the EU wants a concession from U.S. President Donald Trump on the 25% tariff on cars and car parts, the diplomats said, and an immediate lowering of U.S. steel and aluminium import tariffs, which Trump hiked to 50% in June. One diplomat said cars were a "red line" for the bloc. However, Brussels and Washington have conflicting goals as Trump wants to revive U.S. auto production while Brussels wants open markets for its sector, which is struggling with high energy costs and competition from China. Thirdly, the EU wants tariff relief to start as soon as an initial agreement is reached, rather than waiting weeks or months for a final accord. A number of EU members said a deal without this would be unacceptable, the sources said. EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic and the European Commission president's head of cabinet Bjoern Seibert head to Washington later this week hoping to reach a deal. Trump has suspended higher tariffs until July 9 in order to strike deals with global trade partners. He has said countries without deals will see 10% U.S. baseline tariffs on goods jack up to rates of as much as 50%. For the EU, that rate is 20%, although Trump has also threatened a 50% duty on all EU imports. A week before the deadline, the Commission told its 27 member states all outcomes were still possible, from a successful framework agreement to higher U.S. tariffs covering additional sectors, the diplomats said. If its goal of upfront tariff relief fails to materialise, Brussels will have to choose between accepting significant imbalances or responding with countermeasures. Another scenario could be a deadline extension. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday any extension would be Trump's decision, with deals to be wrapped up by September 1.

32 minutes ago
Trump vowed to deport the 'worst of the worst' -- but new data shows a shift to also arresting non-criminals
President Donald Trump campaigned for president on the promise of mass deportations that targeted criminals -- and while ICE agents have arrested over 38,000 migrants with criminal convictions, new data shows a recent shift toward also arresting those who have not been accused of crimes. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has arrested an increasing number of migrants with no criminal convictions, according to an ABC News analysis of Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. The numbers, which were obtained through a public records lawsuit and released by the Deportation Data Project at the University of California Berkeley, give the first real glimpse of how Trump's immigration enforcement policy is playing out in the streets. Over the first five months of the Trump administration, ICE has arrested over 95,000 individuals, according to data analyzed by ABC's owned television stations' data team. At the start of the administration, ICE tended to target migrants with pending or criminal convictions. From Inauguration Day to May 4, 2025, 44% of those arrested had a criminal conviction, while 34% of those arrested had pending charges and 23% had no criminal history, according to the data. But beginning May 25, the data appears to show there was a shift in enforcement -- with individuals with criminal convictions making up only 30% of those arrested. Those arrested with pending criminal charges accounted for 26% of the individuals arrested and 44% had no criminal history. "It looks like there's been a shift from about Memorial Day this year up until now, to an increasing number of people who have been detained who have no criminal charges," said Austin Kocher, a professor at Syracuse University who reviewed the data. "We hear a lot about the administration deporting the worst of the worst. And as far as we can tell from all available data up to this point, the data has not really supported that," Kocher said. The data is largely divided into three groups of individuals: those who have criminal convictions, those with pending charges, and those who may be facing civil immigration charges, labeled as "other immigration violators." However, the data provides no indication of what kind of crimes the individuals may be accused or convicted of. In Los Angeles, where ICE raids recently sparked large demonstrations, and in the New York City area, almost 60% of those arrested by ICE in the first ten days of June had no criminal convictions nor any pending criminal charges, according to the data. Asked about the shift, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told ABC News, "We are not going to disclose law enforcement sensitive intelligence and methods. 70% of the arrests ICE made were of criminal illegal aliens." "We are continuing to go after the worst of the worst -- including gang members, pedophiles, and rapists," McLaughlin said. "Under Secretary [Kristi] Noem, we are delivering on President Trump's and the American people's mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and make America safe." The majority of administration's migrant arrests have taken place in Texas, the state with the longest southern border. But the data also shows that enforcement has largely shifted away from apprehensions at the southern border to apprehensions in the interior of the country. John Sandweg, the former acting director of ICE under President Barack Obama, told ABC News that the shift in enforcement is not a surprise, considering that illegal border crossings are down dramatically. "For the last probably 15 years at least, the majority of ICE arrests, people booked into ICE custody or ICE apprehensions, were individuals apprehended at the border. But now, the administration is very sensitive to the numbers and has started putting ICE under pressure," Sandweg said, referring to Trump's call for more migrants to be deported. "The problem is that you are now engaged in operations that are, frankly, more likely to find non-criminals than criminals," Sandweg said. As ABC News previously reported, ICE's latest tactic has been arresting individuals at immigration courts. In most cases, when a deportation case is dismissed, it is a positive outcome for a migrant, attorneys told ABC News -- but according to immigration attorneys and advocates, immigration enforcement officers have been waiting in immigration court buildings and coordinating with DHS lawyers to arrest migrants promptly after their cases are dismissed, after which the migrants are placed into expedited removal proceedings without allowing them to fight their case. "If there's anything that says this isn't about serious criminal enforcement, it's this wholesale dismissal of cases of the people who are showing up in immigration court," Sandweg said. "I mean, you want to find the place where you're least likely to find dangerous criminals -- it's the people who show up for their immigration court hearings." Sandweg said these new types of enforcement, including courthouse arrests, are being made in an effort to achieve quotas set by the Trump administration. "It's another way to just quickly make some arrests," Sandweg said. The administration, meanwhile, says it's continuing its efforts to target accused criminals. At a press conference on Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said federal authorities have arrested 2,711 alleged multinational gang members since Trump re-took office in January. "You should all feel safer that President Trump can deport all of these gangs and not one district court judge can think they're emperor over this Trump administration and his executive powers," she said.


USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump imposes tougher US policy toward Cuba, enforces ban on US tourism
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Monday signed a memorandum imposing a hard-line U.S. policy toward communist-run Cuba and reversing measures put in place by former President Joe Biden, the White House said. The directive will enforce a statutory ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba while supporting an economic embargo of the country, the White House said in a fact sheet. While Americans cannot visit Cuba for leisure, travel has been allowed for activities including educational or humanitarian trips. As one of his first acts after taking office in January, Trump, a harsh Cuba critic, revoked the Biden administration's last-minute decision to remove the country from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. He has also partially restricted the entry of people from Cuba. More: Top Cuban official accuses Trump admin of escalating tensions, raises concerns of conflict Under Monday's memorandum, Trump renewed a ban on direct or indirect financial transactions with entities controlled by the Cuban military, such as Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), and its affiliates, with exceptions for transactions that advance U.S. policy goals or support the Cuban people. Biden had revoked a 2017 Trump order that restricted financial transactions with some military and government-linked Cuban entities. The new memorandum "enforces the statutory ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba and ensures compliance through regular audits and mandatory record-keeping of all travel-related transactions for at least five years," the White House fact sheet said. It also supports the economic embargo of Cuba and opposes calls in the United Nations and other international forums for its termination, the fact sheet said. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez posted on social media platform X that "the Presidential Memorandum against Cuba made public today by the US government reinforces the aggression and economic blockade that punishes the entire Cuban people and is the main obstacle to our development." "It is a criminal act and a violation of the human rights of an entire nation. The main obstacle to our development," he said. (Reporting By Steve Holland; additional reporting by Marc Frank in Havana; Editing by Franklin Paul and Chris Reese)